Background: Typically, closed-loop control (CLC) studies excluded patients with significant hypoglycemia. We evaluated the effectiveness of hybrid CLC (HCLC) versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) in reducing hypoglycemia in this high-risk population. Methods:Forty-four subjects with type 1 diabetes, 25 women, 37 ± 2 years old, HbA1c 7.4% ± 0.2% (57 ± 1.5 mmol/mol), diabetes duration 19 ± 2 years, on insulin pump, were enrolled at the University of Virginia (N = 33) and Stanford University (N = 11). Eligibility: increased risk of hypoglycemia confirmed by 1 week of blinded continuous glucose monitor (CGM); randomized to 4 weeks of home use of either HCLC or SAP. Primary/secondary outcomes: risk for hypoglycemia measured by the low blood glucose index (LBGI)/CGM-based time in ranges. Results: Values reported: mean ± standard deviation. From baseline to the final week of study: LBGI decreased more on HCLC (2.51 ± 1.17 to 1.28 ± 0.5) than on SAP (2.1 ± 1.05 to 1.79 ± 0.98), P < 0.001; percent time below 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) decreased on HCLC (7.2% ± 5.3% to 2.0% ± 1.4%) but not on SAP (5.8% ± 4.7% to 4.8% ± 4.5%), P = 0.001; percent time within the target range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10 mmol/L) increased on HCLC (67.8% ± 13.5% to 78.2% ± 10%) but decreased on SAP (65.6% ± 12.9% to 59.6% ± 16.5%), P < 0.001; percent time above 180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L) decreased on HCLC (25.1% ± 15.3% to 19.8% ± 10.1%) but increased on SAP (28.6% ± 14.6% to 35.6% ± 17.6%), P = 0.009. Mean glucose did not change significantly on HCLC (144.9 ± 27.9 to 143.8 ± 14.4 mg/dL [8.1 ± 1.6 to 8.0 ± 0.8 mmol/L]) or SAP (152.5 ± 24.3 to 162.4 ± 28.2 [8.5 ± 1.4 to 9.0 ± 1.6]), P = ns. Conclusions: Compared with SAP therapy, HCLC reduced the risk and frequency of hypoglycemia, while improving time in target range and reducing hyperglycemia in people at moderate to high risk of hypoglycemia.
RCT Entities:
Background: Typically, closed-loop control (CLC) studies excluded patients with significant hypoglycemia. We evaluated the effectiveness of hybrid CLC (HCLC) versus sensor-augmented pump (SAP) in reducing hypoglycemia in this high-risk population. Methods: Forty-four subjects with type 1 diabetes, 25 women, 37 ± 2 years old, HbA1c 7.4% ± 0.2% (57 ± 1.5 mmol/mol), diabetes duration 19 ± 2 years, on insulin pump, were enrolled at the University of Virginia (N = 33) and Stanford University (N = 11). Eligibility: increased risk of hypoglycemia confirmed by 1 week of blinded continuous glucose monitor (CGM); randomized to 4 weeks of home use of either HCLC or SAP. Primary/secondary outcomes: risk for hypoglycemia measured by the low blood glucose index (LBGI)/CGM-based time in ranges. Results: Values reported: mean ± standard deviation. From baseline to the final week of study: LBGI decreased more on HCLC (2.51 ± 1.17 to 1.28 ± 0.5) than on SAP (2.1 ± 1.05 to 1.79 ± 0.98), P < 0.001; percent time below 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) decreased on HCLC (7.2% ± 5.3% to 2.0% ± 1.4%) but not on SAP (5.8% ± 4.7% to 4.8% ± 4.5%), P = 0.001; percent time within the target range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10 mmol/L) increased on HCLC (67.8% ± 13.5% to 78.2% ± 10%) but decreased on SAP (65.6% ± 12.9% to 59.6% ± 16.5%), P < 0.001; percent time above 180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L) decreased on HCLC (25.1% ± 15.3% to 19.8% ± 10.1%) but increased on SAP (28.6% ± 14.6% to 35.6% ± 17.6%), P = 0.009. Mean glucose did not change significantly on HCLC (144.9 ± 27.9 to 143.8 ± 14.4 mg/dL [8.1 ± 1.6 to 8.0 ± 0.8 mmol/L]) or SAP (152.5 ± 24.3 to 162.4 ± 28.2 [8.5 ± 1.4 to 9.0 ± 1.6]), P = ns. Conclusions: Compared with SAP therapy, HCLC reduced the risk and frequency of hypoglycemia, while improving time in target range and reducing hyperglycemia in people at moderate to high risk of hypoglycemia.
Entities:
Keywords:
Artificial pancreas; Closed-loop systems; Hypoglycemia; Type 1 diabetes
Authors: David M Nathan; Patricia A Cleary; Jye-Yu C Backlund; Saul M Genuth; John M Lachin; Trevor J Orchard; Philip Raskin; Bernard Zinman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-12-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Boris Kovatchev; Peiyao Cheng; Stacey M Anderson; Jordan E Pinsker; Federico Boscari; Bruce A Buckingham; Francis J Doyle; Korey K Hood; Sue A Brown; Marc D Breton; Daniel Chernavvsky; Wendy C Bevier; Paige K Bradley; Daniela Bruttomesso; Simone Del Favero; Roberta Calore; Claudio Cobelli; Angelo Avogaro; Trang T Ly; Satya Shanmugham; Eyal Dassau; Craig Kollman; John W Lum; Roy W Beck Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Rose A Gubitosi-Klug; Barbara H Braffett; Neil H White; Robert S Sherwin; F John Service; John M Lachin; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Satish K Garg; Stuart A Weinzimer; William V Tamborlane; Bruce A Buckingham; Bruce W Bode; Timothy S Bailey; Ronald L Brazg; Jacob Ilany; Robert H Slover; Stacey M Anderson; Richard M Bergenstal; Benyamin Grosman; Anirban Roy; Toni L Cordero; John Shin; Scott W Lee; Francine R Kaufman Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Hood Thabit; Alexandra Lubina-Solomon; Marietta Stadler; Lalantha Leelarathna; Emma Walkinshaw; Andrew Pernet; Janet M Allen; Ahmed Iqbal; Pratik Choudhary; Kavita Kumareswaran; Marianna Nodale; Chloe Nisbet; Malgorzata E Wilinska; Katharine D Barnard; David B Dunger; Simon R Heller; Stephanie A Amiel; Mark L Evans; Roman Hovorka Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: Boris P Kovatchev; Laura Kollar; Stacey M Anderson; Charlotte Barnett; Marc D Breton; Kelly Carr; Rachel Gildersleeve; Mary C Oliveri; Christian A Wakeman; Sue A Brown Journal: Lancet Digit Health Date: 2020-01-03
Authors: Eleonora M Aiello; Sunil Deshpande; Basak Ozaslan; Kelilah L Wolkowicz; Eyal Dassau; Jordan E Pinsker; Francis J Doyle Journal: Curr Opin Biomed Eng Date: 2021-06-18